Monday, April 02, 2012
STATUS OF BARDES V. MAGERA, ET. AL.
Click here for an update on Bardes v. Magera et al. Readers may recall "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE." While this outcome was predictable, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Bardes elected to represent himself, Mr. Bardes appears to have raised some legitimate issues that were never addressed by the Court.
Click here for an update on Bardes v. Magera et al. Readers may recall "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE." While this outcome was predictable, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Bardes elected to represent himself, Mr. Bardes appears to have raised some legitimate issues that were never addressed by the Court.
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement, Lawsuits, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Sunday, March 18, 2012
ANOTHER YEAR LATE AND ANOTHER $10 MILLION SHORT
As we previously posted at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-south-carolina-dss-director.html, Lillian Koller knows what to do. The question is whether she is being given adequate support and leeway to get the job done. South Carolina does not need to reinvent the wheel. Every State except for South Carolina has adopted the Model Version of the New Hire Reporting Statute. And, last time we checked, only South Carolina had yet to install the computerized child support tracking and collection system mandated by federal law.
South Carolina's failure to install the computer system will in all likelihood cost the State another $10 Million in fines this year, and in our opinion, places South Carolina at risk for losing up to $80 Million per year in federal funding.
We have offered solutions for cleaning up what we refer to as “The Mess at DSS.” And had our advice been heeded, we are confident that South Carolina could have saved about $50 Million in fines, collected another $250 to $500 Million in Child Support Arrearages, lowered its teenage pregnancy rates, collected incentive bonuses from the federal government, increased its high school graduation rates, and reduced its expenditures on public assistance.
Any South Carolina resident interested in helping Ms. Koller with an enormously difficult job, could start by clicking http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2011/csr/csr1112.pdf and then reading all the ACF Newsletters for the last ten years. Or they could share our BLOG address with Ms. Koller and ask her to contact us. That address is http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/
As we previously posted at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-south-carolina-dss-director.html, Lillian Koller knows what to do. The question is whether she is being given adequate support and leeway to get the job done. South Carolina does not need to reinvent the wheel. Every State except for South Carolina has adopted the Model Version of the New Hire Reporting Statute. And, last time we checked, only South Carolina had yet to install the computerized child support tracking and collection system mandated by federal law.
South Carolina's failure to install the computer system will in all likelihood cost the State another $10 Million in fines this year, and in our opinion, places South Carolina at risk for losing up to $80 Million per year in federal funding.
We have offered solutions for cleaning up what we refer to as “The Mess at DSS.” And had our advice been heeded, we are confident that South Carolina could have saved about $50 Million in fines, collected another $250 to $500 Million in Child Support Arrearages, lowered its teenage pregnancy rates, collected incentive bonuses from the federal government, increased its high school graduation rates, and reduced its expenditures on public assistance.
Any South Carolina resident interested in helping Ms. Koller with an enormously difficult job, could start by clicking http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2011/csr/csr1112.pdf and then reading all the ACF Newsletters for the last ten years. Or they could share our BLOG address with Ms. Koller and ask her to contact us. That address is http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
NO RESPONSE FROM DSS: LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE POST AND COURIER
The following letter appeared in the Post and Courier.
____________________________________________________
On June 10 at 1:29 p.m. I placed a call to the local Charleston Child support agency to reach a case worker whom I have attempted to reach 21 times since March with no success. Two years ago I paid the fee to receive assistance in obtaining child support for my grandchildren. On March 3, a Cincinnati court passed a judgment against the non-custodial parent and awarded support.
Details had to come from the Charleston office. So I made multiple attempts to reach them. Last week I sent a letter to them after receiving a request for paperwork that had been filled out five times. I returned it with a letter informing them I had received no information from the March 3 hearing. I received that information via mail one week later. To date I have yet to receive the payments. I challenge anyone to try to reach someone at this agency. Just call 953-9400 and follow the prompts. Good luck.
Connie Scott
Claussen House Drive
Edisto Island
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/29/letters-to-the-editor/
Details had to come from the Charleston office. So I made multiple attempts to reach them. Last week I sent a letter to them after receiving a request for paperwork that had been filled out five times. I returned it with a letter informing them I had received no information from the March 3 hearing. I received that information via mail one week later. To date I have yet to receive the payments. I challenge anyone to try to reach someone at this agency. Just call 953-9400 and follow the prompts. Good luck.
Connie Scott
Claussen House Drive
Edisto Island
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/29/letters-to-the-editor/
Labels: Child Support, Child Support Collection, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Monday, June 20, 2011
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ARREARAGES DUE FOR ALL FISCAL YEARS FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE FISCAL YEARS
Click Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years to access the latest figures from the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
According to these latest figures, the overall arrearages have increased from $104,406,015,371 to $110,261,308,005 over the last five years. And South Carolina’s arrearages have increased from 1,181,830,710 to 1,303,527,806 during that same period with almost $69,000,000 of that coming in the last fiscal year. Over the five year reporting period, South Carolina has had two governors and three appointed DSS Directors, so it is difficult to lay the blame for this mess at any one individual's feet. On the other hand, Larry McKeown has been the Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division for the entire period, so maybe he should be held accountable.
Click Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years to access the latest figures from the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
According to these latest figures, the overall arrearages have increased from $104,406,015,371 to $110,261,308,005 over the last five years. And South Carolina’s arrearages have increased from 1,181,830,710 to 1,303,527,806 during that same period with almost $69,000,000 of that coming in the last fiscal year. Over the five year reporting period, South Carolina has had two governors and three appointed DSS Directors, so it is difficult to lay the blame for this mess at any one individual's feet. On the other hand, Larry McKeown has been the Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division for the entire period, so maybe he should be held accountable.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Friday, April 08, 2011
SC LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION PROBES ORANGEBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
According to "SLED probes Orangeburg sheriff’s office’s finances":
Orangeburg County officials have asked state investigators to look into the finances of the county’s sheriff’s office after an audit found questions about some of the agency’s bank accounts. The audit from the 2009-2010 budget year found 11 accounts that were never included in financial statements. The accounts contained more than $220,000.
Orangeburg County Administrator Bill Clark says he asked the State Law Enforcement Division to investigate the accounts. The sheriff’s office also asked for a SLED investigation. Current Sheriff Leroy Ravenel is cooperating with the investigation.
Former Sheriff Larry Williams was in charge during the budget year being questioned. He died last September.
This looks like "Deja Vu all over again."
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement
Thursday, April 07, 2011
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MISSING FROM SUMMERVILLE BALLFIELDS
Tens of thousands of dollars from the Gahagan sports complex were handled in a manner so "loosey-goosey," in the words of one Town Council member, that council has called for a forensic audit.
And a related Dorchester County Sheriff's Office embezzlement investigation continues after the late February arrest of a former town employee, according to town officials and deputies.
Council discussed the handling of the funds in a closed-door session March 9. It approved the audit afterward.
The request for a forensic audit, an exhaustive financial audit similar to a criminal investigation, follows a partial audit performed as part of an investigation dating to May 2010.
"The total amount of missing funds was estimated between $70,000 and $111,000 during a Jan. 26 meeting with Martha Bryan, CPA, of Webster Rogers LLC," according to a sheriff's incident report.
But "due to a lack of monetary controls, checks and balances, and not following policy and procedures ... the amount recoverable will only be the $4,200 (the employee charged) admitted to taking," the report said.
The missing funds in the report are an estimate based on money collected at events for which the town has receipts. Town officials said the total money actually missing is probably far less than the sheriff's report indicated, because for some sports events the gate receipts were split with the group holding the event.
Councilman Ricky Waring called the money handling a "passed-down process," and said the procedures did not keep pace with the revenue growth of the Recreation Department after the popular Gahagan Plantation Community Park opened.
An audit Bryan did as part of the investigation could not come up with records for ticket sales at 19 of 62 Gahagan sports events from 2007-10. When cash was moved from the ballfield, signed and dated receipts were not filled out, and there were no regular reviews of those receipts, ticket document purchases or sales, the audit said.
"We were unable to determine an amount of monies that should have been deposited from the sale of tickets because of a lack of documentation," the audit said. "At Town Hall, the monies were often left on a desk, and personnel not responsible for the cash had access to it," the audit said.
The worker, Jeffery Allen Rabun, 51, of Ladson was charged with embezzlement of public funds less than $5,000, according to the Sheriff's Office, after council requested the investigation. Rabun was allowed to resign rather than be fired before he surrendered to sheriff's deputies in February.
This looks like "Deja Vu all over again." But, amazingly, Councilman Ricky Waring, who has been on council for over ten years blames the situation on a "passed-down process." And former Solicitor Walter Bailey who was elected to council on a platform of fiscal accountability and promises to keep better track of the taxpayer's money does not have much to say. But, again, Mr. Bailey he was Solicitor for much of the period when former Sheriff Ray Nash and his deputies were robbing Dorchester County blind, but did nothing to stop it.
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
NOTICE TO BRISTOL COUNTY MASSACHUSETTS PRISONERS
Souza, et al. v. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, Bristol Civil Action No. 02-00870
Souza, et al. v. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, Bristol Civil Action No. 02-00870
You may be a plaintiff in a class action law suit filed in 2002 in the Bristol Superior Court challenging certain fees charged by Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson. The Court has decided that this case covers all Bristol prisoners who paid any of the following fees under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program:
- The $5.00 dollar per day "cost-of-care" fee;
- Fees for medical care;
- Fees for GED services or tests;
- Any haircut fee in excess of $1.50 per haircut.
In 2004, the Court ruled that these fees were unlawful and ordered the Sheriff to stop collecting them. On January 5, 2010, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected the Sheriff's appeal. On January 7, 2011, the Court established a procedure to pay back the illegally seized fees.
If you want your money back, you must file a Claim Form by April 7, 2011. If you did not receive a Claim Form in the mail, you may obtain one by writing to:
Bristol County Jail Class Action
P.O. Box 2002
Chanhassen, MN
55317-2002
This is also the address where you must submit the Claim Form.
If you submit a Claim Form and it is approved, you will receive the amount of fees you paid, plus am additional 10% in interest. However, depending on the number of claims made, your actual payment might be reduced as a result of any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court.
Questions? visit http://www.bristolcountyjailclassaction.com/ or call Toll Free 1-888-764-4439. http://www.mcls.net/english
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement, Misconduct, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Friday, March 11, 2011
SC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES LOCATES MISSING $17 MILLION
According to South Carolina Department of Social Service Presentation to the Full Ways and Means Committee, the South Carolina Department of Social Services had a budget deficit of $28 Million as of January 13, 2011. Approximately $10 Million of the deficit is apparently a portion of a recurring federal fine imposed against South Carolina related to the State's failure to install a federally-mandated child support tracking and collection system. According to SC agency: retirement was key in $28 Million deficit, "about $17 Million of the agency's deficit disappeared when it changed how it calculated how much money it needed to cover its programs and froze hiring."
Before what amounts to an accounting error was discovered, DSS advised the Full Ways and Means Committee that the federal government was to blame for its deficit woes. However, the federal fines that were imposed for South Carolina's failure to comply with the federal mandate to install a computerized child support tracking and collection system are of DSS's own doing. And the problems with uncollected child support are the fault of CSED Director Larry McKeown. Additionally, Mr. McKeown has failed to institute measures to reduce the child support arrearages that have been successfully implemented in other States. And as a result of the ineffective manner in which Mr. McKeown has run his department, South Carolina has not only been fined over $90 Million, but has missed out on federal performance grants.
On the bright side, frightening as the "misplacement" of $17 Million is, South Carolina's new DSS Director appears to be on the ball. We would say she has already earned a raise and that if "the past is prologue" the 70,000 missing South Carolina Deadbeat parents should come out of hiding now and try to work out a payment plan before it is too late.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Friday, February 25, 2011
ALABAMA, MARYLAND, AND PENNSYLVANIA ARE NO LONGER MISSING
We are pleased to announce that Alabama, Maryland, and Pennsylvania are, in the words of Earl Capps, no longer "missing" and that they are no longer on the South Carolina DSS Abandoned Property List. For example, click here to review the "Letter A" portion of the list.
Presumably, South Carolina has forwarded the child support payments it had collected on behalf of these three states to them. And although we still cannot understand why it took so long to complete such a simple task, we commend the South Carolina CSED for its persistence.
Here's hoping that CSED is now fired up and that it will not be another fourteen years before South Carolina installs a computerized child support tracking and collection system. South Carolina is facing an $800 Million budgetary shortfall and cannot afford to spend $10 Million per year on fines associated with the continued violation of federal law.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
SC SHOULD GIVE THE NEW DSS DIRECTOR A CHANCE BEFORE PASSING JUDGMENT
A recent post on FITSNews reveals that Governor Haley's newly appointed DSS Director Lillian Koller left "her agency in Hawaii facing a federal lawsuit over tardy food stamp distribution to needy families." The implication is that South Carolina may be headed down the same path it has has been on for the last fourteen or so years regarding incompetent or ineffective DSS Directors. And the comments to the post are even more critical of DSS. However, before South Carolina runs Ms. Koller out of town on a rail, we say give her a chance; we think that her overall record in Hawaii is cause for optimism and that she may prove to be Governor Haley's best appointment.
As partial support for our optimism, we call everyone's attention to the State Child Support Collection Box Scores for FY 2009. Unlike South Carolina, Hawaii has actually been decreasing child support arrearages, decreasing the number of welfare recipients, and increasing the amount of child support collected.
We certainly do not mean to suggest either that our elected officials should be inviting federal lawsuits or that federal lawsuits are to be taken lightly. However, the fact of the matter is that the Hawaii Legislature may not have allocated sufficient funds for Ms. Koller's Department to comply with federal mandates. Moreover, we note that the referenced lawsuit is equitable in nature and that it is seeking to force Hawaii to comply with federal law rather than seeking either fines or monetary damages. In this respect, this lawsuit is nothing like federal lawsuits against South Carolina that have resulted in over $80,0000,000 in fines with more to come.
Ms. Koller is both an attorney and award-winning public official with a history of getting things done. We believe she will be able to quickly identify the causes of the historical mismanagement of DSS, most particularly mismanagement of the Child Support Enforcement Division. And we hope that both the public and the South Carolina General Assembly will reserve judgment until she has had a reasonable opportunity to evaluate her staff, set priorities, and develop remedial policies. After all, the Mess at DSS was not created overnight and will take some time to rectify.
Labels: Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA DSS FINES MOUNT
Will Folks writes in "DSS Fines Mount," “Such is the game of unfunded federal mandates,” thereby implying that South Carolina is being victimized by the federal government’s decision to fine the state for its failure to comply with an unfunded mandate. In our view, that implication is absurd.
The federal mandate to implement a computerized child support tracking and collection system is not exactly unfunded. DSS records show that South Carolina has received $79,901,279 to date for implementation of the system. Moreover, had the system been implemented and the child support collections rate increased, South Carolina would have been eligible for incentive bonuses. This is in addition to the approximately $80,000,000 in yearly federal Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding that South Carolina receives and which is currently at risk. (Click here for an explanation of how much South Carolina receives in Title IV-D and TANF funding on an annual basis and why that funding is at risk.)
Rather than complaining about the big bad federal government, maybe the South Carolina General Assembly should make some bona fide attempts to actually understand federal law and to enact mandated legislation. And, rather than “rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic,” maybe Governor Nikki Haley should appoint a DSS Director who is not only committed to reform, but who actually understands how to implement mandated reform. And maybe that person should give some serious thought on how to avoid losing $80,000,000 a year in federal funding.
Incidentally, our disagreement with Mr. Folks should in one way be construed as a personal attack against him. We sometimes link to his site and often read the postings to his site. We even sometimes agree with his positions. For example, we agree that DSS is severely mismanaged. We just don't agree that the mandates contained in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act are either unreasonable or unfunded. Essentially, the federal government said to South Carolina, "We are tired of sending so much AFDC money to you each month, so we are going to provide you with a way to make South Carolina fathers pay to support their own children. Additionally, we will fund child support collection costs as well as most of the costs of a computerized tracking and collection system. The catch is that you have to both implement the computerized program and pay for part of the costs. And if you don't implement the program we will start taking our money back and may even stop sending money to you."
We have no idea why these systems cost so much money. Nor do we have any idea of how much they cost to run on an annual basis, though other states can probably provide that information. We do know, however, that the federal government has given South Carolina about $80 Million to build the system and that the federal government sends South Carolina about $40 Million each year to pay for collection of child support; this is on top of the unmonitored "fines" the various family courts access against "deadbeat dads" for child support collection as well as the interest generated on both child support payments and the collected, but undistributed, child support payments paid through the Family Court. We also know that South Carolina's arrearages are increasing, whereas other states who have instituted federally-mandated programs have seen an increase in collections and a decrease in arrearages.
The federal mandate to implement a computerized child support tracking and collection system is not exactly unfunded. DSS records show that South Carolina has received $79,901,279 to date for implementation of the system. Moreover, had the system been implemented and the child support collections rate increased, South Carolina would have been eligible for incentive bonuses. This is in addition to the approximately $80,000,000 in yearly federal Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding that South Carolina receives and which is currently at risk. (Click here for an explanation of how much South Carolina receives in Title IV-D and TANF funding on an annual basis and why that funding is at risk.)
Rather than complaining about the big bad federal government, maybe the South Carolina General Assembly should make some bona fide attempts to actually understand federal law and to enact mandated legislation. And, rather than “rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic,” maybe Governor Nikki Haley should appoint a DSS Director who is not only committed to reform, but who actually understands how to implement mandated reform. And maybe that person should give some serious thought on how to avoid losing $80,000,000 a year in federal funding.
Incidentally, our disagreement with Mr. Folks should in one way be construed as a personal attack against him. We sometimes link to his site and often read the postings to his site. We even sometimes agree with his positions. For example, we agree that DSS is severely mismanaged. We just don't agree that the mandates contained in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act are either unreasonable or unfunded. Essentially, the federal government said to South Carolina, "We are tired of sending so much AFDC money to you each month, so we are going to provide you with a way to make South Carolina fathers pay to support their own children. Additionally, we will fund child support collection costs as well as most of the costs of a computerized tracking and collection system. The catch is that you have to both implement the computerized program and pay for part of the costs. And if you don't implement the program we will start taking our money back and may even stop sending money to you."
We have no idea why these systems cost so much money. Nor do we have any idea of how much they cost to run on an annual basis, though other states can probably provide that information. We do know, however, that the federal government has given South Carolina about $80 Million to build the system and that the federal government sends South Carolina about $40 Million each year to pay for collection of child support; this is on top of the unmonitored "fines" the various family courts access against "deadbeat dads" for child support collection as well as the interest generated on both child support payments and the collected, but undistributed, child support payments paid through the Family Court. We also know that South Carolina's arrearages are increasing, whereas other states who have instituted federally-mandated programs have seen an increase in collections and a decrease in arrearages.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
SOME STATES--NOT SC--SHOWING DECLINE IN CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES
A review of "Table 71: Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years" reveals that some states are decreasing their child support arrearages while the arrearages in other states continues to increase. Note, for example, the progress made in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.
Maybe States such as South Carolina should contact States such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming and find out how they have accomplished this feat and attempt to replicate their efforts. One thing is for certain--while not all the States that have complied with Federal Law by adopting a New Hire Reporting System and installing a computerized child support tracking and collection system have reduced their child support arrearages, all States that have failed to comply with Federal Law--South Carolina--have seen an increase in their arrearages.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, New Hire Reporting
Friday, April 16, 2010
UNDERSTANDING THE CUMULATIVE NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT DEBT
According to "Understanding the Child Support Debt":
Despite record collections by State CSE programs, considerable sums of child support go unpaid every year. As of September 30, 2006, States reported that the total national unpaid child support debt that has accumulated since the program began in 1975 is $105 billion. This large accumulation of child support arrears is a serious concern for a number of reasons. First, if these arrears could be collected, the additional income would clearly benefit the children and families who are owed this child support. Second, some of these arrears are owed to the government. Finally, large arrears balances give the impression that State CSE programs are not doing their job, when, in fact, the situation is much more complicated (emphasis added).
South Carolina has been fined over $80,000,000 essentially for its failure to install federally-mandated child support enforcement programs on the State level. Therefore, we think it is safe to say that, in this case, appearance mirrors reality and the folks at the South Carolina CSE "are not doing their job."
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
Friday, April 09, 2010
MAJOR FEDERAL FUNDING AT RISK IN SOUTH CAROLINA
[States that fail to install computerized child support collection and tracking systems] may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV- (TANF). See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2). Alternatively, a State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program’s requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(4). South Carolina has elected to incur the alternative penalty.
To date, South Carolina has "opted" to be penalized approximately $82,000,000 in "alternative penalties" for its failure to install the mandated computerized child support tracking and collection system. The State has argued that it is making a "good faith effort" to comply with federal law and that, therefore, Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) funding should not be with-held.
Assuming, arguendo, that anyone at South Carolina DSS can argue with a straight face that South Carolina is making a good faith effort* to comply with federal law, we wondered why South Carolina would elect to be fined $82,000,000 in lieu of loosing Title IV-D and Title IV-A funding. So we asked Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner for Child Support Enforcement in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, "What is the total yearly combined Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF) funding received by South Carolina?" A few days later we received an e-mail from Rob Cohen of the ACF:
Commissioner Turetsky referred your email to me for response.The latest Title IV-D expenditure information available can be found in our FY 2006 Report to Congress at [this link]. Please see table 38. We are in the process of posting the ’07 Report – it should be on our website next week.The latest Title IV-A information available can be found in the Office of Family Assistance’s FY 2008 TANF Financial Data page at [this link]. Please see table A.
Mr. Cohen did not directly answer our question. However, the charts he referenced indicate that the total yearly combined Title IV-D and Title IV-A funding received by South Carolina is approximately $77,115,727. We derived this figure by combining the most recent South Carolina figures on Table A (COMBINED FEDERAL FUNDS SPENT IN FY 2008 SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES ON ASSISTANCE IN FY 2008) with the most recent South Carolina figures on Table 38 (Total Administrative Expenditures for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years). $36,834,443 + $40,281,284 = $77,115,727.
Again, as long as South Carolina has not installed the federally mandated computerized child support tracking and collection system, it risks having all Title IV-D and TANF funding terminated. So South Carolina needs to get cracking before someone in Commissioner Turetsky's office with a law degree considers the question of whether South Carolina is actually making good faith efforts to comply with the mandates of the PRWORA.
*See, Black’s Law Dictionary 701 (7th ed. 1999), defining good faith as, “A state of mind consisting in (1) honesty in belief or purpose, (2) faithfulness to one’s duty or obligation, (3) observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, or (4) absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage.”
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
MORE ON COUNTING BLESSINGS AND THE MESS AT SOUTH CAROLINA DSS
In our opinion, many of those in charge at DSS are as incompetent as those in charge at the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. Bless her heart, but Dr. Hayes neither has a clue about how to decrease the child support arrearages in South Carolina nor is equipped to run an agency whose primary failures are related to an inability to understand federal law and implement programs mandated by federal law. Therefore, as we noted, SOUTH CAROLINA SHOULD COUNT ITS BLESSINGS. It could certainly be much worse, and in fact, will be a lot worse before the computer system goes on-line. Not only is South Carolina scheduled to be fined another $10 Million this year, but will be fined at least another $1 Million in 2011.
The real shame of this situation is that, not only is South Carolina being fined for failure to implement federally mandated programs, but that because of its failure to take easy, inexpensive steps to increase its rate of child support collections, South Carolina is missing out on huge federal incentives. Moreover, instead of actually doing something to correct the problems, the State is throwing fathers in jail willy-nilly for allegedly being in Contempt without regard to whether they are actually in contempt and without regard to whether doing so generates more money than it costs the State to house, feed, guard, and prosecute them. (Quick, tell us, who benefits from the incarceration of "deadbeats," how many fathers are currently incarcerated in South Carolina jails for failure to pay child support and what it is costing the State to house, feed, guard, and prosecute them. Now tell us how much money is generated in fees and fines and who gets those fees and fines.)
We can tell you who gets the fees and fines when DSS is involved. You find out the answer to the other questions and you will know why South Carolina has neither implemented the New Hire Reporting Program mandated by Congress nor installed the mandated computer system. Punishing “deadbeats” is a profitable business and the county clerks and sheriffs want to maintain control over who receives the fines and penalties and what can be done with them.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Sunday, March 28, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA SHOULD COUNT ITS BLESSINGS
According to the article “System to track S.C. deadbeats,” "Federal officials said in an e-mail South Carolina is working closely with them in monitoring the system's progress, including quarterly visits and bimonthly teleconferences. But the federal agency contends the penalties are set by law and only Congress can undo them (emphasis added)." This is news to some people, but not to the South Carolina General Assembly and South Carolina DSS. As stated eight (8) years ago in Jim Hodges, et. al. v. Tommy G. Thompson et. al.:
The district court opinion contains a comprehensive history, the details of which need not be repeated here, of the federal government’s longstanding involvement in child support enforcement programs and related federal efforts to work with the States to solve the serious problem of nonpayment of child support. See Hodges v. Shalala, 121 F.Supp.2d 854 (D.S.C. 2000). Currently, as a condition of receipt of any federal funding under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669, States must have an approved state plan for child and spousal support that meets all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 654. Among the prerequisites for approval of a Title IV-D Plan are the requirements that the State establish and operate an automated data processing and information retrieval system, see 42 U.S.C. § 654(24), and a state child support disbursement unit (SDU), see 42 U.S.C. § 654(27)(A). South Carolina concedes that it has neither a federally certifiable statewide automated system for child support nor an SDU. See Hodges, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 86 (emphasis added).This Order makes clear that South Carolina is lucky to have avoided loosing both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF) funding. Certainly, as Dr. Hayes indicates, "money, if not forfeited, could be deployed to help some 250,000 single parents in South Carolina seeking child support through her agency." So the State should count its blessings, get to work solving this problem, and cease playing the victim.
Without an approved state plan, a State may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF). See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2). Alternatively, a State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program’s requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(4). South Carolina has elected to incur the alternative penalty.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Saturday, March 27, 2010
NEW SOUTH CAROLINA COMPUTER SYSTEM TO TRACK "DEADBEATS"
We direct your attention to the article “System to track S.C. deadbeats.” The article contains some inaccuracies and The Post and Courier has assigned a title that is both provocative and inaccurate. Still, this is an important piece and ought to send a wake-up call to the South Carolina General Assembly regarding the underfunding of DSS, the sheer incompetence of Larry McKeown and other well-paid employees of the South Carolina CSED, and the need for South Carolina to begin to comply with federal law.
For the readers' information--and in fairness to Dr. Hayes--the computerized child support tracking and collection system referenced in the article was mandated by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which was passed in 1996. The system was required to be in place by 1998, not 1988.
For the readers' information--and in fairness to Dr. Hayes--the computerized child support tracking and collection system referenced in the article was mandated by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which was passed in 1996. The system was required to be in place by 1998, not 1988.
There are other aspects of the PRWORA which South Carolina is continuing to violate. We blogged about one of them at TRYING TO GET THE SC NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE "RIGHT." We have also made suggestions for cleaning up "the Mess at DSS."
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
SC AG CANDIDATE BOLCHOZ OPPOSES EARLY RELEASE OF PRISONERS DUE TO BUDGET CUTS
According to the Press Release "Attorney General Candidate Bolchoz Opposes Early Release of Prisoners Due to Budget Cuts"
"I am calling on elected officials at every level to ignore special interests and acknowledge their number one responsibility to the people of this State by making public safety funding the number one budget priority. Every South Carolinian, regardless of race, creed, color, or political affiliation deserves the protection of the Government from criminals. Only in a safe community can our students begin to learn and our businesses begin to prosper. Our leaders must stop overfunding bloated bureaucracies which fail in their objectives, while underfunding critical services established to protect lives and property, said Bolchoz” (sic)
We understand where Mr. Bolchoz is coming from. Still, we cannot help thinking that there are at least some "Deadbeats" who do not belong in jail and who could be released early without jeopardizing the public safety. We concede that Mr. Bolchoz is entitled to his opinion. We only think that he ought to identify the over funded "bloated bureaucracies which fail in their objectives" and whose budgets he wants to cut. For example, if it is DSS's budget he wants to cut, we are with him. We say start by firing Larry McKeown. Lenora Reese Bush, and Virginia Williamson and terminating the pass through payments to Heritage Community Services. However, if Mr. Bolchoz wants to reduce funding for DDSN we would insist that he travel to Dorchester County and tell State Senator Rose, State Representatives Young and Horne, and Jerry Musselman of his plan. It is high time for the "special interests" to be identified by name and for pandering to cease.
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement
Friday, March 12, 2010
AUDITORS ARE SEACHING FOR MISSING MONEY IN BEAUFORT COUNTY
According to "Auditors probe missing money in Beaufort county":
It's more than pocket change missing in one South Carolina county — it could be as much as $300,000 — and authorities are trying to find out where the money went.
The Beaufort Gazette reported accountants hired by the county administrator and the county's top prosecutor began working this week on an audit.
The money is missing from the county treasurer's office from a delinquent tax sale last year. Sheriff P.J. Tanner says estimates of the missing money range from $4,000 to $300,000.
A former treasurer's office employee has been charged with breach of trust with fraudulent intent in the theft of $600 from the office several years ago. Authorities say that worker is a person of interest in the latest investigation.
This case is another illustration of the need to have greater transparency and accoutabiliy of finances of the court system.
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement, Misconduct
Saturday, March 06, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO BE AUDITED?
Bill Davis writes in the March 5, 2010 edition of South Carolina Statehouse Report:
DSS may be next
Bill Davis writes in the March 5, 2010 edition of South Carolina Statehouse Report:
DSS may be next
Move over DOT, ESC. The next acronymic state agency that might get investigated by the LAC (Legislative Audit Council) may be DSS, or the S.C. Department of Social Services.
Senate leaders reportedly are not pleased with reports that the agency that is charged with assisting and protecting some of the state’s most vulnerable citizens may have to pay between $10 million and $13 million in fines for this year and next year for failing to comply with federal guidelines. The agency is already struggling due to a sudden increase in calls for family assistance as a failing economy has caused major stress on many South Carolina families (emphasis added).
While we do not doubt the accuracy of Mr. Davis' prediction, we do have two observations and one question.
First, the observations: (1)The fact that federal fines are to be assessed against South Carolina is such old news that we are surprised that anyone who covers South Carolina State Government would find this currently newsworthy. (2.) There is no need to perform an audit to determine who is to blame for the Mess at DSS; Larry McKeown and the General Assembly share the blame for the years 1998--2008 inclusive and Dr. Kathleen Hayes, Virginia Williamson, Esq., Larry McKeown, and the General Assembly share the blame for the years 2009-2012 inclusive.
And, now the question: Which Senate Leaders have just now become "not pleased" with a problem that has existed for over five (5) years? After all, this is one of the issues that House Freshmen were demanding answers about last year.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
